I'm pro-cap. (For different reasons.) But (1) this case is a bad example of unnecessary litigation, and (2) there might be better ways than a cap to stop the l

I'm pro-cap. (For different reasons.) But (1) this case is a bad example of unnecessary litigation, and (2) there might be better ways than a cap to stop the litigation that you're calling "unnecessary." Maybe what you want are no caps, but greater penalties for losing (either to the winning side or to taxpayers who are paying costs associated with large companies suing each other) -- just for one example. So higher risk, higher reward. Or maybe the courts reform to make it easier to dismiss cases. You could think of a million ways to do it without caps. What you don't want are for good cases to not be brought on behalf of consumers because it's not worth the investment of time and money.